The court does not entertain disputed questions of title and possession under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismisses the petitioner's prayer for restoration of possession.

ORDER :

1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11th May, 2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar- respondent no.4, whereby the said respondent has directed the Circle Officer, Deoghar- respondent no.5 and Officer-in-charge, Kunda Police Station to prohibit the petitioner from entering into 3000 sq. ft. of land appertaining to plot no.644, Jamabandi no.1229, Mauja Jhaunsagari without his permission till disposal of the proceeding. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.4 to restore possession of the petitioner over the land in question from which he has been dispossessed. The petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondents from demolishing the remaining structure over the land in question from which he was forcibly evicted on 4th November, 2018 after partially demolishing the structure erected by the petitioner over the same. The petitioner has further prayed for payment of compensation for the said illegal demolition of structure made by the respondent no.4 (wrongly written as respondent no.3) and others.

3. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that earlier at the instance of one Ramjay Roy and others, a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bokaro being Cr. Misc. Case no.1089 of 2007 in which possession of the land appertaining to plot no.644, J.B. no.687, Mauja Jhaunsagari, measuring an area of 5 Kathas was declared in favour of the petitioner’s father. The said order was never challenged by the aggrieved party and the same attained finality. Subsequently, in the year 2012, one Kamdeo Jha and others started taking measurement of the land in question for the purpose of getting the said land registered, which was objected by the petitioner. The petitioner also filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar-respondent no.2 to not register the said land in the name of any other person. The said application was forwarded to the respondent no.4 for enquiry and to take appropriate action, which led to registration of Revenue Misc. Case no.02 of 2012-13. In the said proceeding, the respondent no.5 recommended that since Jamabandi no.687 and Jamabandi no.1229, both, were related with the same plot i.e. plot no.644, one of the Jamabandis i.e. of plot no.644 may be cancelled and the record of the case was sent to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar as well as the respondent no.4. On considering the record as well as the report of the respondent no.5, the respondent no.3- Additional Collector, Deoghar initiated Misc. Case no.2 of 2012-13 and a notice was also issued to the petitioner and others under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The respondent no.3 after considering the record vide order dated 23rd April, 2015 held that it was beyond his jurisdiction to cancel Jamabandi no.687 arising out of plot no.644 and, accordingly, the said proceeding was dropped in favour of the petitioner. It was also observed inter alia by the respondent no.3 that any party being aggrieved by the said order may take recourse before the Civil Court for declaration of title over the said land. It is also submitted that after the order passed in Misc. Case no.2 of 2012-13, the Jamabandi of the said land was neither cancelled nor it was opened in favour of Kamdeo Jha, who sold the property in favour of the respondent nos.6 and 7 vide registered sale deed. However, on 1st November, 2018, the respondent no.7 filed a petition before the Officer-in-charge, Kunda Police Station, Deoghar, intimating him that he purchased a portion of the land of plot no.644 and wanted to erect boundary wall over the same. After the said intimation given to the police, the respondent nos.6 and 7 started erecting boundary wall over 3000 sq. ft. of land under plot no.644, which was owned and possesse